Sign In

Bike sharing is an innovative transportation solution, ideal for short‐distance, point‐to‐point trips. These systems provide users the ability to pick up a bicycle for use within a service area. Some have specific pick up and drop off locations (docks) and some are "dockless," meaning they are picked up and dropped off randomly within the service area. These bicycles have GPS capabilities to monitor use and where they are located. A vendor agreement would ensure bicycles are located within the pre-determined areas.

An Edina-only system would likely be more centered around recreational opportunities than way-of-life biking because so many people cross a border to go to work or to shop. Much of Edina consists of single-family housing neighborhoods so a docked system might make more sense, centered around parks and other public spaces. Would be curious to know what percentage of Edina residents already have access to their own bike, maybe broken down by neighborhood. I think areas with lower ownership and denser housing would maybe have more potential use, but I also think everyone can benefit from bike share at parks and other recreation spots, because then people could have access to the bike when away from home on spur of the moment.

If this system was integrated with Minneapolis and/or other suburbs AND we went with e-bike models, I think things could be a lot more interesting. As a suburb, many of the destinations we want to get to are outside the range of comfortable biking distance for the average biker, but e-bikes could change that significantly.

My taxes are high enough. I get the benefit equation but at what cost to residents unwilling or unable to use the service. The bikes are a six month proposition with the winter months being requiring storage and on going maintenance. What is the cost per unit? How many would be planned? Where would they be made available? If biking is important then invest in a bike. I did but I would prefer not have this service forced upon me.

I agree with the above comments that I don't believe this should be tax payer funded. The percentage of people using this would be very small in my opinion and the benefits of such are not at all uniform. Considering the logistics, I think it will ultimately be a loss. I don't think there's a viable solution for maintaining adequate docking stations to make this a successful or useful tool, nor enough interest or need to warrant a trial. I think it's a waste of money.

I have found in other markets, these schemes are very much supported by private financing, especially if the scheme will be well designed and used. In larger, more densely populated areas, there are often competing providers of bikes, some with docking stations, some without.

In Dallas, TX there are a number of bike share companies operating a dockless system. A simple Google search on "Dallas bike sharing" will give you an idea of how it's going. After 30 entries I stopped counting how many articles reflected negative reports. Because the bikes are not docked, they are left anywhere and everywhere. They end up blocking sidewalks, piled up in front yards, heaped in parks, crowding plazas and are a huge eyesore. The city must now spend valuable time to address the problem. I urge the City of Edina to please take a look at the articles and photographs of the Dallas experience, and note that because of that mess the neighboring town of Highland Park outlawed bike sharing, before making a decision.

Thank you all for your valuable input! I want to address the cost/taxpayer concerns addressed above. Other than the fee to ride (typically around $1 per ride) "Dockless" bike share services are entirely funded, operated and maintained by the service provider - there is no cost to the City or its taxpayers.

The city’s investment is in modifying streets and walkways, stoplights and cross walking to make them safe for all forms of transportation.

Advocating for those who don’t drive, but are home bound because walking and biking, I advocate for strict enrichment of the traffic laws. Example. Invest money to stop drivers from driving so fast that the risk of injury and death of pedestrians and bike riders sharply drops.. These issues result from speeding, impaired driving, failure to signal, not fulling stopping at stop lights and many other driver failures. Take all fines from traffic violations to fund these improvements.

The city spends massively to maintain its roads. A very small part of city budgets may for other forms of transportation. Heavy use of cars for short trips greatly increased our costs of congestion, including what are very expensive parking improvements at 50th and France.

Many commenters appear to think that any city expenditure that doesn’t benefit them directly is not worth making. That is one reason that based on its self assessment in its quality of life survey, Edina residents admit this isn’t a very friendly place. So easy here to be all about and by yourself. That simply is not healthy and very devisive.

I don’t drink more than a couple times a year, don’t golf and don’t have kids in the school. One might think I don’t support our municipal liquor store, which helps fund adult golf and youth sports. I do strongly because I support a city that has great services for all people.

That is what good government looks like - not merely to subsidize what a powerful majority and noisy minorities wants. The city has shown great care in offering new services. We already have low taxes and the quickest way for them to increase if the city stops investing in being exceptional, and high demand to be here depresses our housing prices and reduces our overall quality of life.

I do not see bike sharing as a serious transportation option. This is a very occasional recreation option. Sure there are a very few very dedicated bicyclers who commute to work or go shopping. Infrastructure costs are being paid by others to support a very small group that use bicycles as transportation.

Dick Novack at March 15, 2018 at 4:22pm CDT
This is so much idealistic cart before the horse thinking. 1) Residential spread makes it not work for most Edinans to get to a practical bike location. 2) Type of bike. If you look in garages, most of which have bikes sitting there, you see pricier, lighter weight, efficient bikes which are far better than the """sturdy""" rental bikes. True, a few locations of low income Edinans might have some who might benefit but the cost/benefit would likely be impractical.

One concern seen in the earliest implementations of bike share, especially in China, is the randomness and overaccumulation of bicycles on streets, sidewalks, and generally in the way of things.

Last autumn, I attended the Nice Ride meeting at Macalester College in St. Paul, where the 2 companies vying for the dockless bike contract were presenting. Both companies said their apps would reward users for return bikes to good, logical areas, “virtual bike racks”, if you will. That seems like a great idea.

Also, as the system grows in popularity (assuming it does), cities like Seattle have done things like create marked spaces—“virtual docks”, if you will—for the return of bicycles:

My biggest concern is that the bike sharing company that lost the Nice Ride contract seems to be working with many (all?) the suburbs ringing Mpls to implement bike sharing, at no cost to those governments (just bike rental). It seems as much a business strategy to get their bikes into Mpls as any kind of goodwill.

Will Mpls embrace leaving these non-Nice Ride bikes on their streets & sidewalks? Will the vendor have virtual bike docks in Mpls, or will Mpls require they be rounded up & removed every day? Will the app that runs the system inter operate with Nice Ride, such that you could ride a bike from Edina to Mpls, then switch to a Nice Ride bike for the rest of the trip without additional cost? (This is much like different bus systems where you can get a transfer ticket at no cost.)

While I’m a big fan of bike sharing in general, I think the Planning & Engineering Departments, the Transportation & Planning Commissions, and the City Council & City Manager need to think hard about the implications & ramifications of two independent bike share companies operating next to each other.

Speaking as an older adult, if you want people to stay active and healthy--enjoying a high quality of life, contributing to the community, and costing our expensive health system less--you have to provide access to multiple forms of exercise. Swedish studies show that outdoor exercise strengthens the immune system and it's free. So biking and walking are optimal for older people--and everyone else. It's expensive and physically difficult to maintain your own bike. But how lovely to, when you feel like it, pick one up and away you go! Then return it in good shape. This is a beautiful community common good!

Would need to be able to connect with other cities especially to access the new light rail line (when completed), to the lakes in Minneapolis and trails like the Greenway and 9 Mile Creek trails. Being able to combine bike share with transit is a great advantage. I also have a concern that bikes would get left in places where they are not useful - someone takes it home and leaves it in their neighborhood that doesn't have many other people looking for bikes. Also would a bike be available near me when I need one? this problem occurred with the car sharing service that allowed you to leave them anywhere - my nephew would use the car to get to a family gathering and it would be gone when he wanted to go home with no other cars nearby.